Abstract

References (16)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id2456300. ; Size: 85K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

'Open to Dispute': CODIS STR Loci as Private Medical Information

In Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of collecting and using DNA soon after a person is arrested. In doing so, the Court wrote that “[t]he argument that the testing at issue in this case reveals any private medical information at all is open to dispute.” Emphasizing that “[t]he CODIS loci are from the non-protein coding junk regions of DNA,” the majority of the Justices seemed to question whether it was even possible that “non-coding alleles could provide some information.”

But if the issue is open to dispute, what evidence is available to resolve it, and what should the scientific community, and forensic scientists in particular, do to help? This essay recommends that forensic analysts address this issue with caution in their testimony and writing, that they avoid the confusing phrase “junk DNA,” and that genomic databases and the biomedical literature be monitored regularly to assess the extent to which individuals with access to law enforcement databases could make valid inferences about an individual’s medically or socially sensitive phenotypes.